In “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan argues that the United States should ban private gun ownership almost entirely. His most crucial claim is that general gun ownership does more damage to the U.S. than it prevents. Therefore, banning private gun ownership would minimize the amount of occasions where a gun could potentially be used for harm. In this paper, I will reject these claims presented by McMahan because the banning of private gun ownership would not inevitably lower crime rates.
The premises for McMahan’s argument goes as follows: (1) guns are easy to access for both criminals and non-criminals, (2) easy accessed guns are more likely to be used in avoidable situations. For premise one, he argues that any morally corrupted …show more content…
McMahan makes it obvious that these certain situations could be avoided if access to a gun wasn’t so simple. Which leads directly into his second premise, easy accessed guns are more likely to be used in avoidable situations. He makes the claim that a person who would’ve previously got in a fist fight, could just shoot their enemy now that they have a gun. When someone simply has a gun in their possession, they are more likely to use it. Therefore, gun ownership escalates situations rather than calming them (2). McMahan continues to support these claims by using the analogy that private gun …show more content…
This causes the other states to feel the need to get nuclear weapons to ensure their safety as well. Once all the states have nuclear weapons, there’s a greater chance for disaster than if there were none (3). McMahan claims this is like private gun ownership; when everyone has a gun, potential violence is at a much higher rate, than if there were none. Basically, he feels that either criminals and non-criminals will both have guns or neither will, and gun control advocates in favor of them both having guns (4).
To say guns are easy access for both criminals and non-criminals is vague. To believe that banning private gun ownership will fix this problem almost entirely, is unrealistic. Gun prohibition does not entirely guarantee no access to guns at all for either person, it only makes it more difficult to obtain one. Take criminals into perspective, they already have a history of disobeying the law. So, the idea that they will follow another law put in place is unrealistic. When we look from a non-criminal’s perspective, they could feel less secure than before. A woman’s need to protect
The premises for McMahan’s argument goes as follows: (1) guns are easy to access for both criminals and non-criminals, (2) easy accessed guns are more likely to be used in avoidable situations. For premise one, he argues that any morally corrupted …show more content…
McMahan makes it obvious that these certain situations could be avoided if access to a gun wasn’t so simple. Which leads directly into his second premise, easy accessed guns are more likely to be used in avoidable situations. He makes the claim that a person who would’ve previously got in a fist fight, could just shoot their enemy now that they have a gun. When someone simply has a gun in their possession, they are more likely to use it. Therefore, gun ownership escalates situations rather than calming them (2). McMahan continues to support these claims by using the analogy that private gun …show more content…
This causes the other states to feel the need to get nuclear weapons to ensure their safety as well. Once all the states have nuclear weapons, there’s a greater chance for disaster than if there were none (3). McMahan claims this is like private gun ownership; when everyone has a gun, potential violence is at a much higher rate, than if there were none. Basically, he feels that either criminals and non-criminals will both have guns or neither will, and gun control advocates in favor of them both having guns (4).
To say guns are easy access for both criminals and non-criminals is vague. To believe that banning private gun ownership will fix this problem almost entirely, is unrealistic. Gun prohibition does not entirely guarantee no access to guns at all for either person, it only makes it more difficult to obtain one. Take criminals into perspective, they already have a history of disobeying the law. So, the idea that they will follow another law put in place is unrealistic. When we look from a non-criminal’s perspective, they could feel less secure than before. A woman’s need to protect